IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

A conflict analysis approach for illuminating distributional issues in sustainability policy


  • Munda, Giuseppe


In the area of environmental and resource management and in policies aiming at sustainable development, conflicting issues and interests are the normal state of affairs. Mathematical approaches cannot of course be a panacea able to resolve all real-world conflicts; but they can help to provide more insight into the nature of these conflicts by providing systematic information. Moreover mathematical models are very useful in helping at finding potential social compromises by making a complex situation more transparent to policy-makers and lay people. This is the main objective of the conflict analysis procedure developed here. Distributional issues are taken into consideration by means of an eclectic approach using concepts from land-use planning, fuzzy cluster analysis and social choice. All the various properties presented by the proposed approach are made explicit thus allowing its evaluation on theoretical and empirical grounds. Possible relationships of complementarity or conflictuality with other existing approaches are also discussed briefly. A real-world illustrative example is presented too.

Suggested Citation

  • Munda, Giuseppe, 2009. "A conflict analysis approach for illuminating distributional issues in sustainability policy," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(1), pages 307-322, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:194:y:2009:i:1:p:307-322

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Truchon M., 1996. "Voting games and acyclic collective choice rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 55-55, February.
    2. Laurent Vidu, 2002. "Majority cycles in a multi-dimensional setting," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 20(2), pages 373-386.
    3. Funtowicz, Silvio O. & Ravetz, Jerome R., 1994. "The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 197-207, August.
    4. Donald Saari, 2006. "Which is better: the Condorcet or Borda winner?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 26(1), pages 107-129, January.
    5. James S. Weber, 2002. "How many voters are needed for paradoxes?," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 20(2), pages 341-355.
    6. Podinovskii, Vladislav V., 1994. "Criteria importance theory," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 237-252, June.
    7. Kenneth J. Arrow, 1997. "Invaluable Goods," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 35(2), pages 757-765, June.
    8. Kenneth J. Arrow & Herve Raynaud, 1986. "Social Choice and Multicriterion Decision-Making," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262511754, March.
    9. Stiglitz, Joseph E., 2002. "New perspectives on public finance: recent achievements and future challenges," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(3), pages 341-360, December.
    10. Martinez-Alier, Joan & Munda, Giuseppe & O'Neill, John, 1998. "Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 277-286, September.
    11. S. Ravi Rajan, 2002. "Disaster, Development and Governance: Reflections on the 'Lessons' of Bhopal," Environmental Values, White Horse Press, vol. 11(3), pages 369-394, August.
    12. Moulin, Herve, 1985. "From social welfare ordering to acyclic aggregation of preferences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 1-17, February.
    13. Musgrave, Alan, 1981. "'Unreal Assumptions' in Economic Theory: The F-Twist Untwisted," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(3), pages 377-387.
    14. Mueller, Dennis C., 1978. "Voting by veto," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 57-75, August.
    15. Peyton Young, 1995. "Optimal Voting Rules," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(1), pages 51-64, Winter.
    16. Hervé Moulin, 1981. "The Proportional Veto Principle," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(3), pages 407-416.
    17. James M. Buchanan & Richard A. Musgrave, 1999. "Public Finance and Public Choice: Two Contrasting Visions of the State," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262024624, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Borzoni, Matteo & Rizzi, Francesco & Frey, Marco, 2014. "Geothermal power in Italy: A social multi-criteria evaluation," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 60-73.
    2. repec:spr:grdene:v:26:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s10726-017-9526-x is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Antonio Jiménez-Martín & Eduardo Gallego & Alfonso Mateos & Juan A. Fernández Pozo, 0. "Restoring a Radionuclide Contaminated Aquatic Ecosystem: A Group Decision Making Problem with Incomplete Information within MAUT Accounting for Veto," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-23.
    4. repec:spr:grdene:v:21:y:2012:i:2:d:10.1007_s10726-011-9266-2 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Castellano, Rosella & Cerqueti, Roy & Spinesi, Luca, 2016. "Sustainable management of fossil fuels: A dynamic stochastic optimization approach with jump-diffusion," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 255(1), pages 288-297.
    6. Eléonore Fauré & Åsa Svenfelt & Göran Finnveden & Alf Hornborg, 2016. "Four Sustainability Goals in a Swedish Low-Growth/Degrowth Context," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 8(11), pages 1-18, October.
    7. Brandenburg, Marcus & Govindan, Kannan & Sarkis, Joseph & Seuring, Stefan, 2014. "Quantitative models for sustainable supply chain management: Developments and directions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 233(2), pages 299-312.
    8. repec:eee:ejores:v:269:y:2018:i:1:p:218-226 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Wong, Bo K. & Lai, Vincent S., 2011. "A survey of the application of fuzzy set theory in production and operations management: 1998-2009," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(1), pages 157-168, January.


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:194:y:2009:i:1:p:307-322. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.